To think we should ban private renting?

Well can't say that I didn't try...

I would snatch someone’s hand off who wanted to buy my old flat from me for the price I paid for it. To be honest, I’d seriously consider an offer at half the price I paid for it. I’ve even approached local social housing providers and they’ve had no interest in buying it.

If I wasn’t renting out to some one who wants to live there, I’d have been stuck in a too small flat and had to give up the opportunity for progression in my job that meant I’d move, meaning I’d also be paying significantly less tax (as the job move meant I doubled my salary).

I tried to sell it but it was valued at £0 post Grenfell, and I had a £150k mortgage so I didn’t really have a choice other than to save up a second deposit and buy somewhere nearer to my new job.

But tell me again how I shouldn’t own more than one home.

No, people need to lose some of their entitlement. Empty properties can house people. If a property is empty, it could be used to house someone homeless. End of story.

Ok.

Who would have a say on the tenants? There's a shortage of social housing so would those on the waitlist get priority?

Where is the money coming from to pay the private landlords to sell their properties and who would they be selling them to? Housing Associations or Councils? Social housing is terrible in some areas.

What about say those in the forces or expats who rent out their homes when they're overseas but intend to come back? My brother rented his flat out for 4 years whilst he worked abroad. My parents rented out their house when my Dad was posted abroad.

We are decades away from any real changes or improvements for ordinary people. Partly because most of them won't get off their fucking knees

@Dreamcatcherat50 what is the solution? Revolution?

Strikes me that many posting haven’t a scoobies about the realities of the wider world. As said above, I’m a happy renter and have been so for a very long time.

Fact: Housing Associations and similar providers are allowed to demolish some older housing as uneconomic to repair, but are required to rebuild elsewhere in that local planning authority.
I’d suggest that much housing of the 2 down three up type is also likely to need substantial works before being fit to let. But it’s still the land value the property is sat on the governs the overall price,

You're already annoyed by the very suggestion that landlords shouldn't be allowed to profit from a basic human need

I’m not annoyed at that and I haven’t commented on that for you to make that assumption, you’ve just made it up. I don’t think I’ve actually come across as annoyed by anything you’ve said because I’m not. I was just wondering hence the questions.

So you're either very rich or just getting by; or poor. It's usually the latter two who have the blustering response to government spending which could benefit them.

It may ‘usually’ be the latter two but this is why I don’t agree with judgement when you have zero facts. I am not poor or just getting by, I am comfortable, I own my house and run a business. So you are wrong with all your judgments. I’m definitely not on my knees waiting for change, I’m out there working and trying my hardest to succeed, no one is doing it for me I’m doing it for myself.

I think we’ve come to the conclusion you and your judgment are completely incorrect.

I think there should be more affordable housing and have been involved in delivering this in my local area as a volunteer.

But Housing Associations receive government funding to build new homes. It wouldn't be affordable for them to start buying up private rentals as its cheaper to build new, especially in the area I live in - a National Park where new builds are very tightly restricted and have to either be social housing or for locals only. This depresses land value.

There are plenty of decent private landlords around. I'm a long term renter and don't particularly want to live in social housing as I don't need it. We have a great landlord who's very responsive, charges a reasonable rent and I get to live I a house I can't afford to buy. My DS has been in a shared house at uni for three years. Often private landlords are filling a gap that can't be met by a Housing Association.

In rural areas big agricultural estates often provide long term rentals which tenants live in for decades and works well for landlords and tenants. I don't know why you'd want to intervene in a situation like that. It wouldn't benefit anyone.

It was your choice of language, 'all this money' for 'all these houses'. All this, all these specifically. It speaks of a certain type of person in my experience. I can't explain in any more detail without being unkind.

You're already annoyed by the very suggestion that landlords shouldn't be allowed to profit from a basic human need. So you're either very rich or just getting by; or poor. It's usually the latter two who have the blustering response to government spending which could benefit them.

It was very evident when Jeremy Corbyn wanted to make WiFi free. The people who would have been able to spend that money on other things, or get WiFi for the first timewere suddenly demanding to know how it would be paid for. Showing their Master's what agreeable little subjects they were going to be.

So that's how you come across as that sort of person and that's what lead me to my judgement and assumption. Don't dwell on it and please don't ask again. Ask yourself why it matters to you so much.

We are decades away from any real changes or improvements for ordinary people. Partly because most of them won't get off their fucking knees.

Everyone will judge at some point but I honestly don’t know what you’re basing your judgement on?
How do I come across as a person who only questions government spending under certain circumstances? Like what actually leads you to that judgement or assumption based on my original question?

It helps to have at least a little understanding of the subject you're talking about, don't you think?

"Why would I need to know the intricacies of Bristol to know there are thousands, if not millions, of empty properties in the UK?"

You confidently state that there is no housing shortage, only an empty homes problem.

The reality is more complex. Some empty properties are part of the problem; many are not. One of the main issues is having the right type of home, at the right price, available in the right location. The right type/price of home in Blackpool does nothing to help someone who needs that home/price but in Bristol, or any other area where there is a huge issue with both the availability and affordability of homes.

People ask questions and chat back and sometimes they judge you. It's ok, my judgement can't actually harm you.

You come across as a person who only questions government spending under certain circumstances. For that I judge you.

This is exactly what I mean - do not mix up the USSR and China - totally different - China embraced economic capitalism, that is why it is flourishing. The USSR killed itself.

My brother and wife are in China. They have an apartment in Shanghai, house near another city and their retirement home in Kunming.

So not everyone in China is living 12 to a room.

That's theft. Unless people are open to selling

Please please please - don't mix up Russia and China. USSR did have proper socialism (communism was never achieved in history - communism is Utopia), but this proper socialism did not work out just because it can't, due to people's nature. However China has capitalism economically, but socialism ideologically, so China is doing great exactly because of its capitalism.

USSR was screwed just because of what the OP suggests.

I prefer your plan.

What has that got to do with anything whether I’ve asked a question or not about government spending elsewhere? You don’t know if I have or haven’t but there you are judging again. I’m asking OP a question, not sure why you don’t think it’s genuine? It’s how a chat works people say something and people ask questions or chat back

Might as well go the whole hog then and have everyone rent from the government? Why let people own one house?

If nothing else, state-own houses should be a temporary solution, or a solution for people who have gone through life-changing events and for essential workers. Not a lifestyle choice, not a long term solution, not a "forever home" unless specific circumstances. That would free houses for those who REALLY need them.

Your firefighter spouse is injured or even killed in their job, then yes, by all means the family should be entitled to a council property for as long as they want. It's the least we can do.

You are a nurse or a cop and your salary doesn't allow you to live anywhere near your work place? Then yes, you should be entitled to council homes. (I am aware they are!)
Or we pay you enough so you can afford to live. Private companies and private business might be able to relocate, central London cannot function without essential workers.

In Wales Central government at the senedd is giving local councils the money to buy empty properties and purchase properties on new housing estates. I've no idea how it works elsewhere in the UK

Where does the state get the money to buy these houses? Your state owned home is subsidised. It is supposed to be for people in need so ideally you would move into private rented releasing your council house for someone who needs it more. Making private rented more affordable depends on supply. So we need more private rented properties with strong regulation.

I believe it is called Communism . How did that work out in Russia and China .

Utopian thinking but unrealistic.